"Tanking"

[Biffen 12,564]

Felix- I too select articles I like from the papers and ignore the rest.

Some journalists can hardly spell, yet they work in print.

I once found a turtle crossing the road and we took it in and looked after it for a while .

We then went around and knocked on all the neighbours houses to see if anyone owned it.

A Vietnamese family said they did but I'm not certain they were telling the truth.

We gave them the turtle anyway because they are fairly boring pets and i have enough to worry about.

The media have told us they are quite capable of regulating themselves and they have the money to prove it .

I dont really have a point but I just wanted to share that with you .

[Chook 14,702]

I once found a turtle crossing the road and we took it in and looked after it for a while .

We then went around and knocked on all the neighbours houses to see if anyone owned it.

A Vietnamese family said they did but I'm not certain they were telling the truth.

We gave them the turtle anyway because they are fairly boring pets and i have enough to worry about.

I hope they invited you over for turtle soup the next day.

[CBDees 3,162]

Well the 3AW 'Rumour File' host, Ross Camp[bell (aka Stephenson) announced this morning that tanking charges were to be laid today by the AFL. If true, the game begins in ernest now!

[daisycutter 28,727]

-3 (phase II)

[pitmaster 3,157]

Well the 3AW 'Rumour File' host, Ross Camp[bell (aka Stephenson) announced this morning that tanking charges were to be laid today by the AFL. If true, the game begins in ernest now!

Five months to research it; less than four days to consider the response?

[mjt 640]

What's his form like? I don't think I've noticed anything he's done before other than some draft stuff.

he said it would be announced on the 29th, so who knows.

[beelzebub 22,724]

....ooooh rumour......must be true then !!

[DirtyDees DDC 171]

Well the 3AW 'Rumour File' host, Ross Camp[bell (aka Stephenson) announced this morning that tanking charges were to be laid today by the AFL. If true, the game begins in ernest now!

Deadly Earnest?

[hardtack 10,187]

Deadly Earnest?

No, that would be Ian Bannerman ;-)

[nutbean 8,837]

^{Any journo I read :-. ( and this applies across the board - not only on MFC articles)}

^{1/ We the reader need to be savvy enough to distinguish between opinion and fact however I will judge the journo's standing in my eyes based on their presentation and whether they forward their opinions masqueraded as fact. CW has let herself down on this issue badly by her constant forwarding of her opinion and stating it as fact}

^{2/ Accuracy - I (we) are probably more sensative on MFC issue to accuracy as we have more insight but it is simple journalist philosophy - "check your facts before publishing"}

^{3/ Opinion - I seek balanced opinions from journalists I read. I have no idea whether some of the journalists on this issue are agenda driven or not but there has been an appalling lack of balance by most journalists. A good example of balance in my eyes is the last Gerard Healy piece - he states we tanked ( I disagree as there is no clear definition of tanking in my eyes) , he also comments on AFL induced incentive to do so and a practice that other clubs have done with tacit approval from the AFL. Compare this to Denham ( who i dont consider to be a journo's shoelace) - he has labelled us cheats, which in essence is an opinion that he can forward as in his eyes we have tanked yet goes one step further and suggests we forfeited games and fails to give any background on past histories of other clubs and the tacit approval of the AFL to this kind of behavior.}

^{4/ conclusion - (and logic) - I have been astounded that hardly one journo has taken this whole debate to its logical conclusion. There are a lot of ifs but if Melbourne are charged and if Melbourne, true to their word, take the AFL on in court there is little chance that other clubs who have done much the same will not be dragged into this. Whilst some may not agree with this, it is a very valid line of thought and I am again astounded that so few journo's have at least forwarded this scenario. So many on here have commented on here that the last thing the AFL wants is to have to have a tanking investigation into another 5 clubs yet the majority of journo's have not ventured into this at all. ( I believe if we were the only club to have "tanked" then the AFL would have little hesitation in going us boots and all)}

Edited January 31, 2013 by nutbean

[beelzebub 22,724]

all he said..lol

Well put Nut. Well reasoned and I wholeheartedly agree.

[Tony Tea 2,792]

Matt Thompson - speaking of muppets...

[Whispering_Jack 28,118]

he said it would be announced on the 29th, so who knows.

29th February, I assume?

[felixdacat 459]

^{Any journo I read :-. ( and this applies across the board - not only on MFC articles)}

^{1/ We the reader need to be savvy enough to distinguish between opinion and fact however I will judge the journo's standing in my eyes based on their presentation and whether they forward their opinions masqueraded as fact. CW has let herself down on this issue badly by her constant forwarding of her opinion and stating it as fact}

^{2/ Accuracy - I (we) are probably more sensative on MFC issue to accuracy as we have more insight but it is simple journalist philosophy - "check your facts before publishing"}

^{3/ Opinion - I seek balanced opinions from journalists I read. I have no idea whether some of the journalists on this issue are agenda driven or not but there has been an appalling lack of balance by most journalists. A good example of balance in my eyes is the last Gerard Healy piece - he states we tanked ( I disagree as there is no clear definition of tanking in my eyes) , he also comments on AFL induced incentive to do so and a practice that other clubs have done with tacit approval from the AFL.}

^{4/ conclusion - (and logic) - I have been astounded that hardly one journo has taken this whole debate to its logical conclusion. There are a lot of ifs but if Melbourne are charged and if Melbourne, true to their word, take the AFL on in court there is little chance that other clubs who have done much the same will not be dragged into this. Whilst some may not agree with this, it is a very valid line of thought and I am again astounded that so few journo's have at least forwarded this scenario. So many on here have commented on here that the last thing the AFL wants is to have to have a tanking investigation into another 5 clubs yet the majority of journo's have not ventured into this at all. ( I believe if we were the only club to have "tanked" then the AFL would have little hesitation in going us boots and all)}

Nutbean the fact that that logic can be extended to most subjects that are close to our hearts is what saddens me. To be informed about issues and ideas is a wonderful product of the media, but when opinion is constantly masked by Fact then news articles become as reliable as an internet forum post. If you read a news article and it treated like an other post by GerardRocks72 or Carrorageagainsthedees then I am sure that it would be held to the most severe litmus test of accuracy. I am a cynical ba$tard and reckon the Journo's and their editors are aware of where this could lead in fact giving it a nudge only means more "news" to sell to the masses. But I am digressing yet again.

I agree that the AFL will look at all the possible consequences of any actions they take in this matter. Their response should undergo a vigorous Legal and Risk assessment, if the advice they get is thorough then this issue will die a quick death. But hey depends on who is giving the advice if its lawyers well??...nah not even going there.

[beelzebub 22,724]

29th February, I assume?

i wonder how many will get that !! lol

[PJ_12345 1,098]

29th February, I assume?

29th of February 2014

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Felix- I too select articles I like from the papers and ignore the rest.

Some journalists can hardly spell, yet they work in print.

I once found a turtle crossing the road and we took it in and looked after it for a while .

We then went around and knocked on all the neighbours houses to see if anyone owned it.

A Vietnamese family said they did but I'm not certain they were telling the truth.

We gave them the turtle anyway because they are fairly boring pets and i have enough to worry about.

The media have told us they are quite capable of regulating themselves and they have the money to prove it .

I dont really have a point but I just wanted to share that with you .

You sure it wasn't a tortoise, Biff? Not many turtles around Mt Buller.

[daisycutter 28,727]

29th of February 2014

try 2016

[monoccular 16,661]

Five months to research it; less than four days to consider the response?

Well lets hope that it took so little time because there was no substance to it whatsoever.

[beelzebub 22,724]

Five months to research it; less than four days to consider the response?

the response has always been known though

[Sir Why You Little 35,322]

5 months of stretching hot air...

[mauriesy 6,913]

So is yours.

There's a lot more to a lot of posts about journalists on these threads.

Just because some posts are as you describe doesn't make them all like that.

I said 'a lot'. I didn't say 'all'. I don't think a 'lot' necessarily even means 'most'.

Funny though how most, if not all, people get the bulk of their information from, and rely on, the very media that they castigate, selectively filtering out what they want to hear from what they don't.

There will be a lot of egg on some faces when this is sorted out. Whether it's Caro and Pierek, or some posters here, I'm not willing to speculate.

[red and blue forever 807]

When we handed in our "reply" to the allegations on Tuesday, it was announced the AFL would respond with its decision to charge us or not by the end of the week ...

Today being Friday, I would not be surprised if it was made today.

[daisycutter 28,727]

When we handed in our "reply" to the allegations on Tuesday, it was announced the AFL would respond with its decision to charge us or not by the end of the week ...

Today being Friday, I would not be surprised if it was made today.

and if it is by cob, that seems to mean 7:30

[nutbean 8,837]

When we handed in our "reply" to the allegations on Tuesday, it was announced the AFL would respond with its decision to charge us or not by the end of the week ...

Today being Friday, I would not be surprised if it was made today.

I dont believe it was the AFL that said they would respond by the end of the week - I think it was reporters who said the AFL would respond by the end of the week.

The "papers" have been so wrong so frequently that thismay well be another report that will not be all that accurate. (when I heard that the AFL had handed the MFC a 600 800 1000 page document and gave us a month to respond and then it was reported that the AFL was going to make a decision on our response within 4 days ??? I thought WTF ????). Anyways I am confident that this will come to a head in the next day week month year decade millenium.